Libraries of the Future
CSU LA Basin Pilot Project For Developing Cost-Effective Library
Services and Resources for Student and Faculty Success in the
21st Century
CSU Dominguez Hills, CSU Fullerton, CSU Long Beach,
CSU Los Angeles, CSU Northridge, Cal Poly Pomona
Version 1.0
2-1-2013
February 1, 2013
Page 1
Libraries of the Future
Modern libraries are central to the CSU’s mission to educate the future work force of California and to
deliver the knowledge network for supporting scholarly activities and advancing innovation. Libraries
provide the quality, affordable, and innovative educational content and learning spaces crucial to
student academic success and timely graduation from undergraduate and graduate programs. Libraries
also support faculty scholarship, teaching and learning as they advance their disciplines. The CSU
libraries have been national leaders in innovation and the advantages of intercampus synergies. The
CSU must respond to changing technology which continue to drive change in information access and
library usage and cost. With the collaborative leadership of the provosts, the CSU libraries are poised to
transform the design and delivery of educational content, information services, and learning spaces for
the benefit of CSU students and faculty.
A task force of CSU provosts, library deans, and faculty developed recommendations for a system-wide
initiative to leverage technological advances and transform the CSU’s library services in support of
student and faculty success and the Graduation Initiative. The task force examined how technology and
changing usage patterns open doors to new multi campus opportunities and shared innovative library
services and information access to support the CSU in providing a quality education in the 21st century.
Transforming CSU libraries to enhance their role as campus learning centers will require additional
review of cost, utilization, and effectiveness of services; strategies to increase valuable library services
and expand collaborative shared services; strategic investment in library content, technology,
professional development, and facilities ; and resource redistribution.
The diversity and proximity of CSU campuses in the LA basin provided excellent opportunities to explore
and test innovative multi-campus library services. Beginning with the LA basin campuses enabled the
CSU to make timely and informed progress in transforming our libraries for the future that can then be
adopted in a scalable manner across the CSU.
Charge of Taskforce
Develop recommendations in the following areas:
1. Multi campus collection management, including print and digital content acquisition and access
strategies as well as content curation and archiving through shared resources and services.
2. Assessment of impact of library services on student learning outcomes, retention, and
graduation as well as faculty instructional and scholarly success.
February 1, 2013
Page 2
3. Business practices for the publication, distribution, and use of library content, including
improved digital rights management tools and processes enabling faculty, staff, and students to
use digital content in more flexible ways across more devices.
4. Expansion of shared technology infrastructure and services to enable reliable and cost-effective
delivery of the information resources needed to support CSU instructional and scholarly
activities.
5. Redesign of library facilities, space, and policies as blended learning centers, serving the campus
needs for a 21st education environment.
Taskforce members
•
Six Provosts from the LA Basin (Dominguez Hills, Fullerton, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Northridge,
and Pomona).
•
Two Library Deans (Dominguez Hills and Los Angeles)
•
Two representatives from the CSU Statewide Academic Senate
•
One CIO from LA basin (Fullerton)
•
CO Academic Affairs staff (Smith, Hanley, Perkins)
Outcome
Report providing an overview of current CSU library practices and recommended strategies to transform
the design and delivery of educational content, information services, and learning spaces for the benefit
of CSU students and faculty.
February 1, 2013
Page 3
Background on CSU’s Current Library Services
Section 1: CSU’s Digital Library Services: The Knowledge You Need
At Your Fingertips
The CSU manages the development and delivery of systemwide library services that reduce campus
costs and improve library services to academic programs through the implementation of three
strategies:
Cooperative Purchasing of eJournals and eBooks Deliver Significant Cost
Savings
The CSU has managed the cooperation of all 23 campuses to negotiate significant discounts in the cost
of academic content, software licenses, and vendor training and support services. Cooperative
Purchasing produces actual cost saving because Cooperative Purchasing begins with identifying campus
expenditures that are already common. The Electronic Core Collection ensures that all CSU students
and faculty have access to a common, highly valued and heavily used collection of digital library content.
•
Total # of digital resources – About 800 million searchable journal articles, dissertations, and
other research data, with over 100 million available online in full-text.
•
Total # of contracts for digital resources – about 50 covering nearly 99,000 full-text eJournals
•
Total # of searches - Over 6 million searches and 5 million full-text downloads last year using
systemwide discovery and access tools. Five of the top ten most visited websites hosted by the
Chancellor’s Office are CSU library systems. CSU library systems also receive four times as much
internet traffic as CMS.
CSU has produced $11.6 Million dollars in cost savings for the CSU
institution through its Cooperative Purchasing Strategy in 2011-12
Shared Services Resulting in Scalable Exemplary Practices and Cost Avoidances
The CSU delivers library technology services for 23 campuses as a shared services model. We are
deploying open source strategies with shared expertise across the CSU, which enable optimization of
campus services at low costs to the CSU. The Shared Services include our content discovery tools, our
February 1, 2013
Page 4
digital archiving and repository services, eReference services, interlibrary loan services, and patrondriven acquisition of eBooks and eJournal articles. Working in close cooperation with the libraries, the
CSU avoids the cost of developing 23 derivative academic business practices that would vary in quality
and productivity and enables campuses to share support services, training costs, and propagation of
best practices.
The CSU has produced an estimated $4.8 Million dollars in cost avoidance
for the CSU institution through its Shared Services Strategy in 2011-12
TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS AND COST AVOIDANCE = $16.4M
Efficiencies Through Innovation Resulting in Improved Services at Reduced
Costs
The CSU has been a national leader in innovations that significantly transform library services with
technology. Working with world-leading vendors, the CSU has been a major partner in designing,
developing, deploying, and sustaining innovative library services for the 21st Century. Listed below are
some of the systemwide innovations that are now in use within the CSU.
•
Xerxes is a simple, yet powerful, discovery tool (i.e., scholarly search engine) that allows
students and faculty to search over 800 million books, journal articles, and other research data.
It is an open source system, developed and hosted by the Chancellor’s Office, and customized to
meet each campus’ needs.
•
The bX recommender service provides library users with scholarly recommendations based on
journal articles they discover during their research. The service draws upon worldwide research
usage analytics to make its recommendations: “Researchers who read this article also read . . .”
•
Get It @ Calstate is a pay-per-view service that provides CSU library users with selected
eJournal articles that are not currently part of the CSU collection. In collaboration with
Copyright Clearance Center, the articles are delivered directly to users within minutes, in digital
format, and at a significantly lower cost than purchasing them directly from publishers.
February 1, 2013
Page 5
•
The Xporter service seamlessly integrates our library discovery tools with the different learning
management systems by leveraging international IMS Global technology standards.
•
Patron-driven eBook licensing has enabled CSU libraries to acquire eBooks that have
demonstrated demand from our faculty and students and then ensure that all CSU campuses
have access to the eBook collection through the business relations with different eBook
vendors.
•
Library Services for your Mobile Devices have been enabled by our open source strategy
(Xerxes) adjusting the display of our library search tools to accommodate the parameters of the
user’s mobile device.
•
ScholarWorks is a digital archiving service that allows CSU campuses to preserve and share
student and faculty research, including digital content in a variety of formats (text, audio,
images, video, etc.), currently through an open source application (DSpace) that is hosted and
managed by the Chancellor’s Office and customized to meet campus needs.
Section 2: CSU Libraries Print Collection and Services
CSU Libraries have a significant print collection and interlibrary loan services have been cost-effective
shared services for many years.
•
Total # of print books in the CSU libraries – about 17 million.
•
Interlibrary Loan Services: CSU and UC libraries use a common systemwide book delivery
service (Accurate) to implement our interlibrary loan services. This common delivery service
provides CSU faculty and students access to titles not available at their campus libraries with a
delivery time within 3-7 days and at a significant cost savings.
•
660,000 Interlibrary loan requests were filled in 2010/2011 across the CSU campuses.
Estimated cost savings for the ILL shared service is about $100K annually
February 1, 2013
Page 6
A Re-Vision for the CSU Libraries
LOFT has articulated a number of characteristics of the re-visioned libraries to improve the academic
success of students and faculty while improving the efficiencies and effectiveness of the libraries’
services, resources, and facilities. Appendix A provides summaries and references for relevant
publications supporting the re-visioning of higher education libraries
1. Library as Networks
a. Networks of collections
b. Networks of experts
c. Networks of facilities
d. Networks of technologies
e. Networks of business practices
2. Library as Place
a. Places for learning
b. Places for teaching
c. Places for research, scholarship, and creative activities
d. Places for collaboration
e. Places for social student engagement
f.
Places for community engagement
g. Place as integration of virtual and physical learning environments
3. Library as Service Center
a. Research Services providing easy access to content
b. Resource Services providing affordable learning materials
c. Reference Services providing expert advice
d. Student Services providing learning assistance
e. Instructional Services providing ICT literacy classes
February 1, 2013
Page 7
The re-vision of CSU libraries will enable productive innovations for delivering education. Innovative in
educational practices include
•
Student completing group projects that require them to meet face-to-face, while using the
educational content and technologies they need to create their learning eportfolios
•
Students engaging in the campus academic and student service communities that help them
succeed (retention and graduation);
•
Student participating in a range of academic and student support services that help them
succeed (retention and graduation);
•
Faculty discovering, using, and creating a growing knowledge base for instruction,
scholarship/research/creative activities, and university/community services.
LOFT has drafted a number of examples to illustrate how these characteristics will be blended to deliver
innovative library services to CSU students and faculty. Appendix C provides these illustrations.
Supporting the LOFT Activities
The revisioning of libraries will require expertise that the CSU does not currently have available. The
CSU Office of the Chancellor conducted an RFP for consulting services to support the 5 priorities of the
LOFT taskforce. The consulting agreements are Master Enabling Agreements which qualify the selected
vendors to be contracted by both campuses and the Chancellor’s Office to deliver specific services. The
vendors that have qualified under the Master Enabling Agreement are:
1. Sustainable Collection Services (SCS): Print collection analysis and management strategies
2. Pfeifer Partners: (Re)Design of library facilities and space
3. Godfrey Associates:
a. Academic, business, facilities policies and planning
b. Business strategies for acquisition and use of electronic content
The Chancellor’s Office will also be contracting with the Social Sciences Research Center at CSU Fullerton
to provide the consulting expertise for the assessment of library impact on student and faculty success.
February 1, 2013
Page 8
Assessing Library Services Needs, Utilization, and Outcomes
The CSU Council of Library Directors has implemented a systemwide standing committee, the COLD
Assessment Team (CAT) that is developing, testing, and deploying various research methods, analytics,
and business intelligence projects that will provide campuses valuable, reliable, and valid findings on
how CSU libraries’ services, resources, collections, and facilities are contributing to the success of
students, faculty, staff, and the university community. LOFT has been working with CAT so the CAT
planning is aligned with LOFT priorities.
LOFT recognized that there are probable difference in the needs and expectations of library services
across disciplines. The table below provides findings from CSULB illustrating the differences in book
circulation across disciplines.
Data from CSU Long Beach illustrating differences in library services across disciplines
The 6 LA basin campuses committed to conducting preliminary focus groups on expectations and needs
of future library services for different disciplines. Below are the campus assignments for conducting
faculty focus groups across the different disciplines.
February 1, 2013
Page 9
Disciplines
Campus
Campus
Art and Humanities
CSULB
CSUDH
Business
CSUF
CSUN
Education and Social Sciences
CSUN
CSULA
Engineering
CPP
CSUF
Applied and Health Sciences
CSUDH
CPP
Natural Sciences and Math
CSULA
CSULB
Analyses of CSU Print Book Collections: Beginning with 6 LA Basin
Libraries
LOFT recognized that the first focus for innovation and transformation was the print book collection and
services. Many of the” re-visioning” elements of libraries of the future will require redesign and
repurposing of the facilities and services within campus libraries. LOFT hired SCS consulting services to
conduct an analysis of the circulation and redundancies of the 6 LA basin print book collections.
Preliminary Findings
1. Table 1: Circulation data, how often a book was checked out, provides a measure of how often the
book was used. The follow table provides the number of title holdings that circulated in the last 10
years
Table 1: Circulation of Print Book in the last 10 years
CSU Library Title-Holding Counts
6 LA Basin
Libraries
Percent
1
All Title Holdings - Filtered
3,575,321
100%
2
Total Circulation = 0 times
1,161,359
32%
3
Total Circulation = 1 to 3 times
1,071,029
30%
4
Total Circulation = 4 to 9 times
699,350
20%
5
Total Circulation = 10+ times
643,583
18%
February 1, 2013
Page 10
6
Last Circulation after 2010
501,890
14%
7
Last Circulation after 2007
914,325
26%
8
Last Circulation after 2005
1,157,845
32%
Table 2: The redundancy of book titles held by the 6 LA basin libraries
CSU Library Print Book Title-Holding Counts
1
2
3
4
All Title Holdings
6 LA Basin
Libraries
Percent
3,575,321
100%
Title-holdings stored in 1 library
978,728
27%
Title-holdings stored in 2 libraries
717,012
20%
1,879,581
53%
Title-holdings stored in 3 libraries
630,176
18%
Title-holdings stored in 4 libraries
556,887
16%
Title-holdings stored in 5 libraries
445,660
12%
Title-holdings stored in 6 libraries
246,858
7%
Title-holdings stored in 3 or more libraries
The preliminary analyses of the print book collection of the 6 LA basin libraries indicate that there are
significant opportunities for deselecting print books from open stacks. The removal of books from open
stacks can
•
Produce space that can be redesigned for new library and learning support services (Table 3);
•
Produce cost savings by reducing the cost of cleaning, staffing, and maintaining books and
environment (Table 4).
February 1, 2013
Page 11
Table 3:
Volumes
Square Feet
100,000
20,000
250,000
45,000
500,000
80,000
1,000,000
150,000
2,700,000
405,000
Source: Stephen R. Lawrence, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and
Keith H. Brigham, “Life Cycle Costs of Library Collections”
College & Research Libraries, November 2001, p. 546.
Courant and Nielsen (2010) estimated the cost of servicing a book on open stacks as compared with high
density storage systems. The costs below are provided in 2009 US dollars (Table 4).
•
$4.26 per volume in open stacks
•
$0.86 per volume in high density stacks (e.g. robotic systems)
Table 4:
February 1, 2013
Page 12
What do we do with the deselected books?
The deselected title holdings can be processed in a number of ways in accordance with CSU library
retention strategies (which need to be developed):
•
Archived in compact or robotic storage facilities on existing CSU campuses
•
Distributed by donation or other agreement to approved, non-CSU libraries
Diversity of CSU Libraries:
LOFT recognizes that there is a wide range of library facilities and services across the CSU. There are a
number of newer facilities with reduced books collections from the outset (e.g. CSU Monterey Bay and
CSU Channel Islands). Many CSU libraries have also invited relevant academic and student service
programs within their facilities to better support learning.
February 1, 2013
Page 13
Recommendations: Next Phase of CSU Libraries of
the Future Initiative
LOFT recognizes that CSU campuses and libraries can share many elements of a common vision for
libraries of the future but the campuses’ strategy to achieve the shared vision will be have both
systemwide and campus-specific components. Some CSU libraries have already made significant
investments to redesign their libraries though print collection curation, compact book/journal storage
systems, technology integrations and facilities redesigned as student learning commons.
Recommendation 1: Each campus will develop their Vision-Strategy document.
The Vision-Strategy document would describe the campus-specific strategy, should take about 3 months
to develop, and will include:
•
A description of their current library resources, services, collections, and facilities
•
A vision of the library’s resources, services, collections, and facilities in the future that will
deliver significant benefits toward the campus’s strategic priorities. The vision would include
how the campus will blend both systemwide shared services and campus-specific services.
Examples illustrating their vision will be one component of the description of the campus vision
(see Appendix C for examples).
•
A strategy “roadmap” that describes the possible transformations that the campus could
implement to turn the vision for ots library into reality. The strategy roadmap would include
how the campus will blend both systemwide shared services and campus-specific services.
Recommendation 2: A print collection management strategy will be developed and
implemented as a combination of campus specific and systemwide strategies.
•
Each campus will develop its campus-specific deselection strategy which will remove print books
from open stack shelving and other storage.
•
Campuses will work collaboratively to develop/improve cooperative;
•
Access strategies that provide students and faculty reliable and timely access to the print
library resources they need through interlibrary loan services and digital alternatives;
•
Retention strategies that defines the procedures for retaining access to the print book
within the libraries circulation services, including open stacks, compact shelving, robotic
shelving, interlibrary loan, and digital archiving;
February 1, 2013
Page 14
•
Acquisition strategies which coordinate the purchasing of new print books that optimize
use and access as well as reduce costs and redundancies.
Recommendation 3: The CSU Office of the Chancellor, working with COLD, will conduct a
“spend analysis” of the expenditures within the CSU libraries to identify opportunities where
the collective campus expenditures might be more cost effectively served by systemwide
strategies.
We expect that:
•
The CSU Office of the Chancellor and the CSU libraries can begin an analysis of, and planning for,
a shared library management system, or a set of shared systems, with additional funding to
support the selection, purchase, and management of such systems.
•
TheCSU libraries can begin exploring shared cataloging and collaborative electronic resources
management workflows to reduce redundant efforts in these areas across the CSU.
Recommendation 4: The COLD Assessment Team, with support from the CSU Fullerton Social
Science Research Center, will develop and implement high quality, valid and reliable research
on the impact of library services on student learning outcomes, retention, and graduation as
well as faculty instructional and scholarly success.
The assessment reports will be useful for both campus and systemwide planning and decisions.
Next Steps: 2013-15
1. Launch the Libraries of the Future Initiative which will include:
a. Communications and collaboration campaign;
b. Program strategy connected with Council of Library Directors planning and operations;
c. Project management, program support, and consulting services provided by the
Chancellor’s Office Academic Technology Services.
2. Advance Print Collection Management Strategies:
a. LA Basin campuses will use the print book collection analyses by SCS to:
i. implement their deselection strategies
February 1, 2013
Page 15
ii. review and revise collaborative access/interlibrary loan strategies
iii. develop collaborative retention strategies,
iv. develop collaborative acquisition strategies, and
v. share lessons learned with other CSU libraries
b. The remaining 17 campuses can begin the print book collection analysis process and will be
able to:
i. Apply lessons learned from the LA basin campuses to inform and streamline their
own analysis and deselection strategies;
ii. Inform the LA basin campuses as they develop scalable and sustainable
collaborative retention and acquisition strategies.
c. The Council of Library Director (COLD) will implement systemwide print collection
management strategies (version 1.0) for sustaining collection analysis, deselection,
retention, access, and acquisitions
d. COLD will expand collaboration on physical collection analyses to include:
i. Collection management of print journals,
ii. Collection management of special collections, and
iii. Collection management of other physical media.
3. Transforming Library Facilities and Services: Campuses will develop their visions and strategies for
transforming campus library services and facilities to deliver the benefits for students, faculty, and
institutional operations. A portfolio of plans for redesigning library facilities and services will be
developed and analyzed to identify opportunities for collaborative and shared services projects.
4. Assessment of Library Impact on Student, Faculty, and Institutional Success: COLD will develop
and implement assessment methods and analyses to produce high quality, valid and reliable reports
on the impact of library services on student learning outcomes, retention, and graduation as well as
faculty instructional and scholarly success. These reports will be useful for both campus and
systemwide planning and decisions. The Chancellor’s Office will support the COLD Assessment
Taskforce by contracting with the CSU Fullerton Social Science Research Center to design and
implement the assessment methods and analyses.
5. Expanding Shared Library Services: The CSU Office of the Chancellor, working with COLD, will
conduct a “spend analysis” of the expenditures within the CSU libraries to identify opportunities
February 1, 2013
Page 16
where the collective campus expenditures might be more cost effectively served by systemwide
strategies. We expect:
a. CSU Office of the Chancellor and the CSU libraries can begin an analysis of, and planning for,
a shared library management system, or a set of shared systems, with additional funding to
support the selection, purchase, and management of such systems.
b. CSU libraries can begin exploring shared cataloging and collaborative electronic resources
management workflows to reduce redundant efforts in these areas across the CSU.
February 1, 2013
Page 17
Appendix A: Libraries of the Future: Background
Information
The transformation of Academic Libraries is an ongoing topic in the literature. Two publications can
provide a solid context for the discussion of Libraries of the Future.
1. Lewis, David W. “A Strategy for Libraries in the First Quarter of the 21st Century,” College and
Research Libraries, September 2007, 418-434. Lewis, Dean of the University Library, Indiana
University Purdue University Indianapolis, lays out the transformation issues for academic
libraries succinctly and effectively. Abstract:
The wide application of digital technologies to scholarly communications has disrupted the
model of academic library service that has been in place for the past century. Given the new
Internet tools and the explosive growth of digital content available on the Web, it is now not
entirely clear what an academic library should be. This article is an attempt to provide a strategy
for academic libraries in what is left of the first quarter of the 21st century. There are five
components of the model: 1) complete the migration from print to electronic collections; 2)
retire legacy print collections; 3) redevelop library space; 4) reposition library and information
tools, resources, and expertise; and 5) migrate the focus of collections from purchasing
materials to curating content. Each of the components of the strategy and their interactions will
be considered. It is hoped that the result will provide a useful roadmap for academic libraries
and the campuses they serve.
ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. “2012 top ten trends in academic libraries: A
review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education,” College and
Research Library News, June 2012, 311-320.
The top ten trends presented in alphabetical order, each with a brief summary before
discussion, are (1) Communicating value; (2) Data curation; (3) Digital preservation; (4) Higher
education (turmoil; change); (5) Information technology; (6) Mobile environments; (7) Patron
driven e-book acquisition; (8) Scholarly communication; (9) Staffing; (10) User behaviors and
expectations
Brief Bibliography
Association of College and Research Libraries. Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research
Review and Report. Researched by Megan Oakleaf. Chicago: Association of College and Research
Libraries, 2010. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf
February 1, 2013
Page 18
This very comprehensive report is cited throughout the current literature. Oakleaf reviews the
literature, methodologies, and best practices in demonstrating academic libraries’ value. Informative
report reviews existing research on library performance, research gaps, and potential measures and best
practices. The 15 page executive summary addresses the purpose of the report and its scope, presents a
comprehensive summary of next steps, and describes a research agenda.
Education Advisory Board. Redefining the Academic Library: Managing the Migration to Digital
Information Services. Washington: The Advisory Board Company, 2011.
Report of the Education Advisory Board that was prepared largely for provosts and VPAAs at member
institutions. This report generated interest at several CSUs in the LA Basin and ultimately serves as
background for the Libraries of the Future Task Force. Web site http://www.eab.com/Research-andInsights/Academic-Affairs-Forum/Studies/2011/Redefining-the-Academic-Library) indicates availability
to member institutions. Google Search provides links to other PDF copies. Here is the executive
summary from the EAB web site:
Academic libraries are faced with a daunting series of challenges brought on by the digital
revolution. In an era when millions of books, articles, images, and videos available
instantaneously via the web, libraries across all institutional types are experiencing declining
demand for their traditional services, built around the storage and dissemination of physical
resources.
At the same time, new demand for digital information services and collaborative learning spaces
promise new areas of opportunity and engagement with patrons. A rapid and orderly transition
to “the library of the future” requires difficult trade-offs, however, as no institution can afford to
continue expanding both its commitment to comprehensive, local print collections as well as
new investments in staff, technology, and renovations.
This report illustrates how progressive academic libraries are evolving in response to these
challenges, providing case studies and best practices in managing library space, staff, and
resources.
Standards for Libraries in Higher Education. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries, 2011.
Current standards approved and adopted by the Standards and Accreditation Committee and the Board
of the Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association. From
the “Introduction”:
The Standards for Libraries in Higher Education are designed to guide academic libraries in
advancing and sustaining their role as partners in educating students, achieving their
institutions’ missions, and positioning libraries as leaders in assessment and continuous
improvement on their campuses. Libraries must demonstrate their value and document their
February 1, 2013
Page 19
contributions to overall institutional effectiveness and be prepared to address changes in higher
education. These Standards were developed through study and consideration of new and
emerging issues and trends in libraries, higher education, and accrediting practices.
These Standards differ from previous versions by articulating expectations for library contributions to
institutional effectiveness. These Standards differ structurally by providing a comprehensive framework
using an outcomes-based approach, with evidence collected in ways most appropriate for each
institution.
February 1, 2013
Page 20
Appendix B: Illustrations of Library of the Future
Services for Students and Faculty
LOFT drafted four scenarios to illustrate how the library of the future would apply to different types of
students and faculty on our campuses.
1. Maria- the First-Time Freshman
It’s the 4th week of class in the fall and Maria is a first-time freshman - the first in her family to go to
college. She is going to the library to begin her first college term paper for history and is very anxious.
The professor is requiring at least a 10 page paper with at least 10 references from peer reviewed
resources. Maria comes from a high school where the school closed its library due to budget cuts and
the local library wasn’t in a safe neighborhood. She also doesn’t have access to the internet at home
but does have a smart phone. Her family has a 4 year old computer in their living room.
She walks in the front doors of the library and ….she remembers that the University 100 course she took
the week before classes started provided her with some early practice using the library services. During
the course, the instructor helped her download a library app that lets Maria do some simple library
services from her smartphone.
Maria pulls out an handout her teacher prepared to her students (e.g. Libguides) Maria is afraid to ask a
person for help so an Info Kiosk or TV provide information as she enters the library, such as:
1. Writing a term paper and need help – visit the Student Writing Center – with good advice and
support, you can succeed.
2. Looking for a quiet place to study? Visit the 3rd floor
3. Looking for group project rooms? Visit the 1st floor
Maria spends 2 hours getting started on her term paper after visiting the Student Writing Center and
doing some initial library research. She is feels much less anxious about writing her term paper has she
drives to her 30 hr. /week job.
2. John: The Transfer Student
John is a transfer student from CCC with limited library knowledge, has smart phone and laptop but
hasn’t had to go beyond Google to search for information. He’s a chemistry major with a 3.4 GPA from
the CCC but is finding the course work at the CSU significantly more demanding. He needs to write an
February 1, 2013
Page 21
upper division paper that is really a proposal to applying the course curriculum to address a
sustainability or “green” problem. He knows he has to do extensive research and learn beyond the
content of his course.
John’s professor for the course (Dr. Green) recognizes that many of his students come to the CSU with
significant variability in their ICT (Information, Communication, and Technology) literacy skills and knows
that their success in writing the sustainability proposals is very dependent upon their ICT literacy skills.
As part of his Chemistry course, Dr. Green assigns his student to complete the CSU’s ICT for Scientists
certificate program that is delivered by the library. Dr. Green and the Library’s ICT Dept. Chair (Dr. Ice)
collaborated with a lead faculty from the Departments of Biology and Physics on developing this 3 week,
student-learning-outcomes based curriculum that blends the development of both general ICT literacy
skills and those specific to the bio/chem/physics-tech discipline. Drs. Green and Ice also worked through
their campus process to have the certificate noted on the students’ transcripts. Drs. Green and Ice
published the curriculum as Open Educational Resources with a Creative Commons license so librarians
and scientists around the world can use this curriculum, bringing Drs. Green and Ice international
recognition. The CSU’ BIOCOMPASS program (“Advancing Industry with Education
http://www.csubiocompass.org/index.html) shares this curriculum with its industry partners to improve
their research capabilities.
John goes the library for the first session of the ICT for Scientists course and to his delight, finds out the
course is guided by project-based, social learning pedagogies and the entire library faculty are resources
for students to draw upon in building an ePortfolio demonstrating these skills they have acquired. John
likes this idea because he sees the ePortfolio as the beginning of the academic ePortfolio he can present
during job interviews. Dr Ice provides the rubric for students to complete the certificate program
successful and the “homework” he needs to do for the certificate is exactly what John needs to learn so
he can write his chemistry proposal.
The Library’s ScholarWorks institutional repository, which stores all the masters’ theses, has been
expanded to store student projects and ePortfolios what become some of the evidence that the
Chemistry Dept uses in their program review and WASC accreditation. The Library ensures the digital
content conforms to IMS Common Cartridge packaging so a student can download their work so that it
can be uploaded and successfully displayed in other technology platforms.
It’s midterm time and John’s feeling a bit overwhelmed. While in the library, he sees the “Learning
Success Center” (formerly named the Learning Assistance Center), which looks very welcoming and has
a good “buzz.” John drops in for a visit and ends up talking with a peer counselor who helps John with
his time management techniques.
John turns in his sustainability proposal, feeling satisfied with is work and feeling energized about how
the chemistry he’s learning is important for address important global climate issues. He is ready to take
on the next semester’s full load of courses and he’s thinking about going on to graduate school.
February 1, 2013
Page 22
3. Julie: The Online Student
Julie is a student from Arizona taking an upper division history course in a CSU’s online program to
complete her degree. Julie had dropped out about 4 years earlier with 105 credits toward her history
major due to personal circumstances. A single mom with 2 teenaged children, she is working full time,
and she wants to complete her degree so she can get a better job. Julie needs to complete an
independent senior project for her degree, and the project requires both a written “paper” and delivery
of a webinar within the senior project seminar on her topic.
From within the campus’ learning management system (LMS), Julie is able to use the library’s online
discovery tools (e.g. Xporter) to search, find, and organize an extensive reference list (with RefWorks)
that will become the reading list for her webinar. She’s able to build the reading list within the LMS.
All the other students will have full-text access to these resources for free since the articles are within
the library’s electronic core collection. Also from within her LMS, Julie has access to the library’s 24 X 7
online “Live Reference” services where she can get guidance on finding the materials she needs. She
uses this service a lot during her late nights waiting up for her 2 teenagers.
The last time Julie did a seminar presentation, it was with a handout and a whiteboard while speaking to
her fellow students face to face. Presenting a webinar is a completely new experience. Fortunately,
Julie’s CSU library is the university’s “Learning Center” and its ICT literacy program provides a wealth of
tools and support. It offers online tutorials for using virtual meeting software (e.g. Elluminate, Google
Hangouts, etc.) and media production (e.g. PPT, Captivate, etc.) that provides her the basic instructions
about how to produce and deliver a multimedia webinar. The library also has a student-run service that
provides 1:1 help and support for students developing their multimedia senior projects. The MediaMentoring services is a “cloud” service that includes: 1) a repository for students to store and manage
the versions of their project, 2) a virtual media lab where the campus pays for the licenses of the
different media production tools, where as a student, Julie can learn to use the tools to create her
project, and 3) an online peer review community where she can get feedback from other students
within a social media environment.
Julie is able to use all the library services with her mobile/smart phone, which makes it very convenient
for her to keep on top of her project. During breaks at her job, she is able to get her library research
and reading done. Julie completes her webinar successfully and finds that the ICT literacy skills she’s
learn through the library services has enabled her to get a promotion in her current job.
4. Sam: The New Tenure Track Faculty
Sam is a new tenure-track faculty coming from a premier research institution in nuclear physics. His
primary research resources are online library databases and journals. The cost of these resources is
February 1, 2013
Page 23
significant but the usage is very low because of the specialized area of research. It is the summer before
his 2nd year and he’s trying to get his research program going with students in his lab.
Sam is concerned that he won’t have access to the research articles he needs for his scholarship and
these students in the Physics Dept Master’s Program. He remembers a presentation by librarians
during his online new faculty orientation which occurred during the summer before he came to the CSU.
The librarian talked about the CSU’s Get It @ Calstate service that licenses specific articles from journals
the university can’t afford. He visits with the science librarian to discuss strategies to support his
research and scholarship. The science librarian let’s Sam know that she’s part of a CSU network of15
reference librarians who specialize in science who share services across the CSU. Sam and his students
can request support from the network as his projects develop. The science librarian also explains how
the libraries and the campus deans of research and graduate studies have been building a database of
CSU researchers, research projects, consortia programs, and more in which Sam and his students can
participate (e.g. FRESCA https://fresca.calstate.edu/). The science librarian then shows Sam the wide
range of multimedia production and student group research facilities that the library has available.
Knowing this is a great relief to Sam since his lab space was very limited.
With his grant money, Sam can set up an account to purchase specific articles for his research at
significantly lower costs. He is shown how to set up a secure online research library and community
where he can store the digital versions of the Get It @ Calstate articles for his ongoing use. The science
librarians have been working with a number of reputable and free open access journals, published by
professional societies and institutions which Sam was not aware off. The CSU has been publishing open
access journals as well; the CSU’s MERLOT Journal for Online Teaching and Learning (JOLT) has been
published since 2005 with a 28% acceptance rate and the CSU Student Research Journal publishes
articles produced from the CSU’s annual student research competition. The library has become the
CSU’s open access publisher with its cloud repository, cataloging, and delivery services. Sam sees this
service as a real benefit for his students and it will help provide them with a quality educational and
professional environment for learning.
February 1, 2013
Page 24
Appendix C: Guidelines for Developing Campus
Vision-Strategy Statements for 6 LA Basin Campuses
Vision
Define the characteristics of the CSU campus library that will be essential in the future to transform the
academic library, with emphasis on improving the academic success of students and faculty, while
improving the efficiencies and effectiveness of the library’s services, resources, and facilities
The Present
Describe the current status of your library. At minimum, include the items below, and provide specifics.
•
Essential collections for campus academic program
•
Adequacy of current space to meet materials collection needs
•
Ability of current facility to manage closed archiving of materials collections (compact storage,
robotic systems, etc.
•
Current ability to meet library collections and services needs (staffing, facilities, technology, etc.)
Context: CSU Planning (Access to Excellence), COLD Strategic Plan; CSU Campus Planning (strategic plan,
academic plan, library plan—as available)
The Future
Describe your campus goals
•
At minimum, include services to be delivered from within the library and the benefits of
concentrating them in a learning commons2 framework
Additional considerations:
•
Develop existing synergies (Where are the synergies on your campus between the library and
student support services, faculty development, research, teaching and learning, other academic
resources?)
February 1, 2013
Page 25
•
Develop new synergies (Where do you need to make better connections between the library
and functions/operations that support research and scholarship, teaching and learning,
community service?)
Outcomes
What are the strategic outcomes most important to your campus?
•
Student success (retention, graduation rates, high impact practices)
•
Reduced opportunity costs for the university;
•
Consolidated and efficient use of facilities and staffing,
•
Learning and research supported beyond the classroom and laboratory,
•
Multi-disciplinary services for students, faculty, and staff
SAMPLE CSU Long Beach Vision-Strategy
Vision for the transformed library and an outline of their specific strategy for
transforming space and services
This report is an action item from the October 12, 2012 LOFT meeting. .
Basic facts regarding space:
•
The Library began with 253,564 square feet between the main Library building and the east side
of library.
•
In 1990 the completion of the North Campus Library (now the Horn Center) added 40,000
usable square feet of library space to the 253,564 for a total of 293,564 square feet.
•
In the east side of the Library, 139,381 square feet were occupied by book stacks holding print
collections already at capacity and requiring expansion.
•
In 1996 a multi-year deselection program was initiated and numerous organizational changes
were made resulting in the library over the next several years vacating 32,000 square feet of the
Horn Center and the entire 53,564 square feet of the East library (now the Academic Services
building) for a total of 85,564 square feet. The space so made available was repurposed by the
February 1, 2013
Page 26
university for much needed faculty offices, classrooms, and various services for students and
faculty such as Academic Advising, Learning Assistance Center, Art Museum and others.
•
In sum, the Library gave away 93,564 between the HC and the east side for non-Library
purposes.
Today
•
Today, the library occupies 161,708 usable square feet or 91,856 fewer than in 1990.
o
Of this, 44,800 square feet are book stacks or 94,581 fewer than in 1990.
o
8,000 square feet in the Lower Level of the Library and 22,200 square feet on the fifth
floor were repurposed from book stacks to collaborative study space for students
adding 396 and 320 seats respectively.
o
On the first floor, the 6,600 square feet of reference collection book stacks were
downsized by 4,000 square feet and the resulting space was repurposed into a 200
station open access lab for students.
•
CSULB library is in an optimal situation with 107,739 linear feet of shelving of which 35,274 is
available for growth and 350,000-volume capacity still available in the onsite automated book
storage and retrieval system.
•
We queried the Librarians on which departments/programs have an ESSENTIAL need for print
collections available locally as well as analyzed print usage and those results can be found in
part 3 of this report.
•
The library currently houses the University Honors Program, President’s Scholars Program, the
Beach Learning Community Laboratory, the California Child Welfare Resource Library, the
Faculty Center for Professional Development, and a Starbucks café. These occupy 10,200 square
feet of library space. At this time, we can think of no other services that should be in the
Library.
February 1, 2013
Page 27